Hacker News Reader

Comment by fizigura | Hacker News Reader

If you compare the Android from 2008 and the Android from 2023 then you'd soon agree that within these 15 years, the whole thing was re-invented multiple times.

And I'm not talking the UX, which has already changed substantially, but I mean the underpinnings.

View on HN

Sure. But as far as the user is concerned, it is much the same. Touchscreen apps, app store, camera, wifi and phone abilities, app switcher and back button. The user doesn't care that the wheel has been reinvented 3 times along the way... There hasn't been any revolutionary new features in android since shortly after launch really.

There have been revolutions in apps. For example, pre 2017 I couldn't just tap a button and get an Uber. Or tap a button and have food delivered. Or do a video call with all my friends.

But the OS can't really claim credit for most of that innovation.

> There hasn't been any revolutionary new features in android since shortly after launch really.

Not visibly. But the tech stack has changed substantially.

I'd find it quite an achievement if the UX has largely stayed the same while things under the hood got modernized over and over again and went with the times, subtly bringing innovations to the UX as well without people realizing. It's a feature that things don't look substantially different every two years.

Android Auto was 2015.

Hasn't really seen widespread acceptance. I bet a sample of 100 cars on the freeway, perhaps only 25% would have carplay or android auto connected in the USA, and outside the USA adoption is far lower.

Are you sure?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/05/23/carplay-android-a...

> A report from Straits Research found that 98% of newly produced vehicles were compatible with either CarPlay or Android Auto. Meanwhile, 80% of prospective car buyers strongly preferred having these smartphone-based infotainment systems in their new vehicles.

The same research also shows Asia-Pacific to be the biggest market for these products, though North America is the fastest-growing.

"connected" vs "compatible with"

Tbf. 25% connected is huge. If you just jump into your car to quickly do groceries or pick up your kids, you may not be interested in connecting your phone to your car, even if you really like that feature. So there could be a natural ceiling for the "connected" number and 25% feels getting close to that ceiling actually.

My older car requires a hardwire connection for Android Auto, but my newer car will automatically connect over wifi so I no longer need to take my phone out of my pocket unless I want to charge.

If 80% of buyers express a strong preference for having Carplay/Android Auto I don't think it's reasonable to say that they haven't seen "widespread acceptance."

I read that as "strong preference for having Carplay/Android Auto over the car manufacturers own UI".

And everyone is just frustrated with laggy UI's in cars. But in reality they'll probably still just use Waze with a 10 buck phoneholder suction-cupped onto the windscreen.

Why on earth would you do that instead of using Waze on the larger, built-in screen? Especially if you are a buyer who "strongly prefers" having that in the first place? Nobody is using that kind of holder on a car with Android Auto or Carplay.

Security-concious people like to keep the complexity low of things that are involved in their day-to-day activities. Having your car mingle with your phone is kinda the opposite of this.

I don't think this describes any significant portion of users.

Maybe, maybe not. But it describes an answer to your "why on earth" question.

People may have different preferences from yours.

The proposition in question is whether Android Auto/CarPlay is “widely accepted,” so implicitly what I’m being asked to believe is that there is a large portion of car buyers who strongly prefer a car that supports these features but then don’t actually want to use them because of security concerns. I think the idea is absurd on its face.

Not sure where you're being asked to believe that beyond a single thread contribution. I've argued your point earlier in this thread and agree that they are "widely accepted", so you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Nevertheless, some people prefer not to accept them while not being entirely anti-tech either. You may not be agreeing with choices other people make, but it goes a little far to call them "absurd on its face", don't you think?

This sounds like a result of how often cars are replaced. What if you stopped a sample of 100 cars released in the last five years? That proportion would be far higher. Pretty much every car review I watch mentions support for either or both.

Uber was founded in 2009, and pretty broadly available by 2014 Grubhub was founded in 2004, I was ordering from there all through college 2007-2011 Google actually put out hangouts in 2013, and Skype could do group calls in 2010

Not trying to downplay what happened after this: it was incremental change that made the products scale and be more usable to more people. I would say the things you describe as revolutions were actually evolutions of earlier products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com